I’ve written very little about George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin, and I have nothing to say about the trial. It’s a lethal-force incident, with a claim of self-defense, and in years of reading about such incidents, I’ve learned a few important lessons:
(1) These cases are very fact-specific: Guilt or innocence can turn on just a few details, and it will be hard to arrive at a sound conclusion about Zimmerman’s guilt unless you know all the relevant details.
(2) The media usually does not report all the relevant details.
(3) Some of the relevant details are unknowable, except to the participants.
So unless I listen to the entire trial — and maybe not even then because of (3) — I don’t have any opinion about the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman that I can be confident about. For the most part, neither does anyone else, but that doesn’t seem to stop many of them from talking about it.
This is the most cogent piece of commentary on the trial that I have read. Bravo!
Heh. I don’t normally get so self-righteous about these things, but this is not a policy issue that depends on general principles that we can all argue. To say something sensible about Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, you have to have command of the facts, or at least the various fact patterns alleged by both sides.
well, that doesn’t stop most of us most of the time!
good to see you in New Haven the other day
Nothing? I am going to call the relevant authorities to have your blogging licence revoked.
I know, I know. It’s been a hot topic for months, and an angry post about the trial could get me tons of readers. What the heck have I been thinking?
Mark, you’ve written what I wish Jennifer Abel would have written.